Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Shradha,

please see inline:



On 14/10/17 19:13 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Pls see inline..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Psenak [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 8:03 PM
> To: Shraddha Hegde <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
>
> Hi Shraddha,
>
> please see inline:
>
> On 13/10/17 15:49 , Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>> Stephane,
>>
>> In certain cases MPLS forwarding may not be supported on some legacy linecards.
>
> The problem you are describing is not SR specific, it would apply to LDP as well. So the indication should not be about SR, but about MPLS forwarding support on interface.
>
> With MPLS being deployed for more then 20 years, I wonder why there was no need to solve this issue earlier and why we need to address it now with SR.
>
>> Since these links should be used for IP forwarding IGPs will advertise these links.
>> It is better to have explicit indication of this rather than use absence of adjacency-sid on the link.
>>
>> With the new SR flag, while the SPF and the SR-Path does not change,
>> there is an indication To the controller and head-end nodes that the links cannot do SR-MPLS forwarding.
>> The controller or head-end implementations may have mechanisms to
>> prevent pulling Traffic on SR paths. When Head-end node detects a
>> prefix-sid path going through such incapable links It may skip
>> installing SR paths for such prefix-SID and implementations may decide
>> to use other mechanisms (such as RSVP or IP) at the head-end which would prevent Traffic loss.
>>
>> This is also a useful tool during transition to SR when  certain links
>> should avoid carrying SR traffic due to operational reasons.
>
>    >  there are standardized mechanisms like affinities that can be used to address above mentioned operational issue.
>
> These mechanisms are specific to SR-TE when the paths are built based on constraints.
> Link color based solution cannot be used when the SR traffic is flowing over SPF paths using Node-SIDs.

as we discussed this privately before (and agreed I believe), if we need 
to address this case, it will be about MPLS enablement not about SR. Do 
you agree?

I'm willing to accept the need to advertise the MPLS enablement on the 
link, if people believe the use case is valid. I have some doubts there 
though, due to the long history of this problem.

thanks,
Peter

>
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
>>
>> Rgds
>> Shraddha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:03 PM
>> To: [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for
>> draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
>>
>> Hi Authors,
>>
>> One question, why do you think it is really needed to introduce the SR flag ? Couldn't it be deduced from the presence of an Adj-SID and the SR router cap ?
>> The SR flag unset while the router supports SR looks strange to me. Why do you want to prevent "SR forwarding" on a link if the node supports SR ?
>>
>> " With this information, a centralized
>>      application can decide to use a different path for that traffic by
>>      using a different label stack."
>> In such a case, the usage of a Node-SID may be complex, as the Node-SID may cross a link with the SR flag unset. This will force the controller to use Adj-SIDs only.
>> If the controller uses only Adj-SIDs, then an implementation can allow the user to prevent the advertisement of Adj-SIDs on a particular link.
>>
>> Could you clarify the use case here ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christian
>> Hopps
>> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2017 04:43
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: [Isis-wg] WG Adoption poll for
>> draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> The authors have requested the IS-IS WG adopt
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.
>> org_doc_draft-2Dhegde-2Disis-2Dadvertising-2Dte-2Dprotocols_&d=DwIFAg&
>> c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdV
>> KcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=C2KWg-TNJXOgV_qiX8ZDhjjJW6rn3GhpPaBzHTDjqZ0&s=
>> lHsxN1TAflKdy5QZ1sKRfmprtswYQGOljhQpvPNoJkE&e=
>>
>> as a working group document. Please indicate your support or no-support for taking on this work.
>>
>> Authors: Please indicate your knowledge of any IPR related to this work to the list as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris & Hannes.
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> ___________________________________________________
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Isis-wg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail
>> man_listinfo_isis-2Dwg&d=DwICAw&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDT
>> XcWzoCI&r=NyjLsr7JA7mvpCJa0YmPdVKcmMXJ31bpbBaNqzCNrng&m=HA7t5B3gAhN2q_
>> Lj_Ykis3SRVwgLO3HnsBNztTBm604&s=SWKyb05_7fQL4r4j4a4WcU78M4nYaaLz16pBKh
>> wzBGo&e=
>> .
>>
>
> .
>